Dr. David Miller 🏳️‍🌈
LightNews LightNews
banner
davidimiller.bsky.social
Dr. David Miller 🏳️‍🌈
@davidimiller.bsky.social
8.9K followers 860 following 2.1K posts
Physicist Turned Psychologist | Senior Researcher in #STEMed | Meta-Analysis Nerd | https://d-miller.github.io/

Also posts about 🧪 science funding to focus my attention.

Personal account. I don’t speak for my employer or any other orgs.
Posts Replies Media Videos
davidimiller.bsky.social
Fuck that noise.

Federal workers deserve our respect and pay.

And more than that: it's the law.

"Shall be paid...at the earliest date possible after the lapse in appropriations ends"

31 U.S. Code § 1341 (c)(2): uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?p...
(2) Each employee of the United States Government or of a District of Columbia public employer furloughed as a result of a covered lapse in appropriations shall be paid for the period of the lapse in appropriations, and each excepted employee who is required to perform work during a covered lapse in appropriations shall be paid for such work, at the employee's standard rate of pay, at the earliest date possible after the lapse in appropriations ends, regardless of scheduled pay dates, and subject to the enactment of appropriations Acts ending the lapse.
October 7, 2025 at 3:30 PM
davidimiller.bsky.social
A tale of two states and Trump's shakedown of higher ed:

TEXAS: Oh goody, yes, we love to strip away academic freedoms to serve Trump's wishes.

CALIFORNIA: Eat shit. Any university who signs the letter will lose state funding.
“The University of Texas system is honored that our flagship — the University of Texas at Austin — has been named as one of only nine institutions in the U.S. selected by the Trump administration for potential funding advantages under its new Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” Kevin P. Eltife, the chairman of the University of Texas Board of Regents, said in a statement on Thursday. “We enthusiastically look forward to engaging with university officials and reviewing the compact immediately.” Newsom
October 3, 2025 at 12:30 AM
davidimiller.bsky.social
One blatant violation of the Hatch Act after another:
“I am out of office for the foreseeable future because Senate Democrats voted to block a clean federal spending bill (HR 5371), leading to a government shutdown that is preventing the US Small Business Administration from serving America’s 36 million small businesses. Every day that Senate Democrats continue [to] oppose a clean funding bill, they are stopping an estimated 320 small businesses from accessing $170 million in SBA-guaranteed funding.” The email goes on to say that once the shutdown is over, “we are prepared to immediately return to the record-breaking services we are providing under the leadership of the Trump Administration.”
October 1, 2025 at 4:21 PM
davidimiller.bsky.social
In that vein, NSF's shutdown plans just went public: nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/files/nsf-sh...

Already-funded projects can continue. And proposals can be submitted. But don't expect a response from a program officer during the shutdown.
Brief Summary of significant agency activities that will continue during a lapse: National Science Foundation (NSF) will use available carryover balances to continue daily operations. Once those balances are exhausted, electronic systems for proposal preparation and submission will remain available for use during a lapse in appropriations, (i.e., Research.gov, and Grants.gov). The Awards Cash Management Service (ACM$) and the Invoice Processing Platform (IPP) will remain available for the submission and processing of valid payments for recipients and contractors. Recipients may continue performance under their NSF awards during a lapse in appropriations, to the extent funds are available, and the period of performance of the grant or cooperative agreement has not expired. In the event of a lapse, more detailed information on NSF operations for recipients, panelists, and employees will be posted at www.NSF.gov, and will be updated as necessary during a lapse. 2 Brief Summary of significant agency activities that will cease during a lapse: In general, no new grants, continuing grant increments, cooperative agreements, or contracts will be awarded. No new funding opportunities (program descriptions, announcements, solicitations or Dear Colleague Letters) will be issued. Responses to any inquiries received regarding upcoming deadlines will be deferred until normal operations resume. All panels (including virtual panels) scheduled to occur during a lapse in appropriations will be cancelled and will likely be rescheduled to a later date.
September 30, 2025 at 8:19 PM
davidimiller.bsky.social
A tiny glimmer of hope: the opinion said the district court can still review claims about guidance for future proposals.

Just: no preliminary relief for now.
The Court finds that it likely lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ retrospective APA claims, so it must deny Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary relief as to those claims. In analyzing Plaintiffs’ remaining claims, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to show irreparable harm flowing from their prospective APA claims and have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims. As a result, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction without considering the other preliminary injunction factors
September 10, 2025 at 11:52 PM
davidimiller.bsky.social
Key initial win in court for Harvard and academic freedom!!

Ruling based on free speech rights under 1st Amendment.

Judge ruled that distinguishes the case from recent Supreme Court decision on NIH grant terminations.

"This is not Calvinball."

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
It may well be that these differences would not distinguish these claims in the eyes of the Supreme Court, although that remains unclear under existing caselaw. But this is not Calvinball and there are rules. Under those rules, which are set by existing Supreme Court precedent, this Court cannot conclude that core First Amendment claims or pure statutory violations fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. A
September 3, 2025 at 10:10 PM
davidimiller.bsky.social
In contrast, the Senate version is more what to aim for:

Sec 224: Blocks modified approach for indirect rates

Sec 239: Blocks multi-year funding scheme

www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/do...
13 SEC. 224. In making Federal financial assistance, the 14 provisions relating to indirect costs in part 75 of title 45, 15 Code of Federal Regulations, including with respect to the 16 approval of deviations from negotiated rates, shall con17 tinue to apply to the National Institutes of Health to the 18 same extent and in the same manner as such provisions 19 were applied in the third quarter of fiscal year 2017. None 20 of the funds appropriated in this or prior Acts or otherwise 21 made available to the Department of Health and Human 22 Services or to any department or agency may be used to 23 develop or implement a modified approach to such provi24 sions, or to intentionally or substantially expand the fiscal 25 effect of the approval of such deviations from negotiated 131 •S 2587 RS 1 rates beyond the proportional effect of such approvals in 2 such quarter. SEC. 239. None of the funds appropriated by this Act 21 may be used to increase the proportion of multi-year 22 grants awarded by the National Institutes of Health in 23 fiscal year 2026 that are fully funded in the first year 24 of the award, relative to the comparable proportion in fis25 cal year 2024, unless the National Institutes of Health 141 •S 2587 RS 1 awards at least the same number of total grants in fiscal 2 year 2026 as in fiscal year 2024.
September 2, 2025 at 5:46 PM
davidimiller.bsky.social
Here's the House's provision: appropriations.house.gov/sites/evo-su...

"30% of an award" --> .3/.7 = 43% indirect rate cap

"IRS section 4968" --> private uni or college with $500K+ endowment per student (and 3,000+ students)

So targets elite wealthy unis like Harvard, Columbia, etc.
SEC. 235. None of the funds made available by this 17 Act to the National Institutes of Health may be used for 18 facilities and administration costs (as defined in section 19 200.414 of title 2, Code of Federal Regulations) that ex20 ceed 30 percent of an award to an applicable educational 21 institution that is an organization subject to taxation 22 under section 4968 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
September 2, 2025 at 5:46 PM
davidimiller.bsky.social
👎 Less good: the bill would slash CDC's budget by $1.7 billion, a -19% cut.

From the Dems' summary: democrats-appropriations.house.gov/sites/evo-su...

CALL YOUR REP. Also call for RFK Jr. to resign for his ongoing coup of CDC.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – The bill includes a total of $7.4 billion for CDC, a cut of $1.7 billion below the 2025 level. Within this amount, the bill: o Eliminates all funding for domestic and global HIV/AIDS activities:  Domestic HIV/AIDS Prevention and Research, a cut of more than $1 billion below the 2025 level, including the elimination of the $220 million Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative.  Global HIV/AIDS program, a cut of $129 million below the 2025 level. o Eliminates funding for Firearm Injury and Mortality Prevention Research, a cut of $12.5 million below the 2025 level. o Eliminates funding for Tobacco Prevention and Control, a cut of $247 million below the 2025 level. o Eliminates funding for Global Tuberculosis, a cut of $12 million below the 2025 level. o Reduces funding for Global Vaccine Preventable Diseases, a cut of $50 million below the 2025 level. o Eliminates funding for the Climate and Health program, a cut of $10 million below the 2025 level. o Eliminates funding for the Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant, a cut of $160 million below the 2025 level.
September 2, 2025 at 3:25 AM
davidimiller.bsky.social
Link to the bill summary (bear in mind: talking points selectively picked by Rs): appropriations.house.gov/sites/evo-su...
Provides $48 billion for the National Institutes of Health, maintaining America’s edge in basic biomedical research for cures to cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and rare diseases, and supports the Trump Administration’s priority of increasing research for other chronic diseases impacting Americans
September 1, 2025 at 10:40 PM
davidimiller.bsky.social
And for full context:

This was in the context of having an industry partner model being a good thing, IN ADDITION TO broad-based GRFP.

But without a broad-based GRFP, that's 👎. Major unanswered ❓ right now about what will be available.
Boccanfuso said UIDP’s pilot design will explore requiring students to perform a significant amount of their research “embedded within a company” to increase the company’s return on investment. Brennan noted that an additional graduate fellowship program could enable GRFP to support a wider variety of research by relieving some of the pressure to concentrate awards on a relatively narrow set of agency “priority areas,” such as AI and quantum information science. “If you have hot research areas that can be supported by Intel or OpenAI or whoever is willing to fund these partnered fellowships, then there’s less pressure on the rest of the program, which really is focused on basic research,” Brennan said. “You don’t want to cut out all the talented people in geosciences and life sciences and psychology and sociology in favor of giving everyone who’s doing AI a fellowship.”
August 29, 2025 at 8:54 PM
davidimiller.bsky.social
New resource page here from @ecrhub.bsky.social for understanding the ECR:Core-specific changes:

ecrhub.org/resource/com...
Comparing NSF STEM K-12 Versus ECR:Core Last updated: 8/27/25 Sign up for an NSF-hosted webinar on September 4 to learn more. On August 22, 2025, NSF announced the new NSF STEM K-12 solicitation, which restructures funding opportunities for research in formal preK-12 education and informal settings. This page briefly clarifies high-level differences with the existing EDU Core Research (ECR:Core) solicitation, including recent changes to ECR:Core. The following content is for informational purposes only. See the above links for official guidance from the NSF.gov website. For further questions, you can email a program officer (ECR@nsf.gov for ECR:Core; STEMK12@nsf.gov for STEM K-12).
August 28, 2025 at 3:42 PM
davidimiller.bsky.social
This of course contrasts with what "official" HHS is claiming.

Primary source for that: x.com/HHSGov/statu...
Susan Monarez is no longer director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We thank her for her dedicated service to the American people. @SecKennedy has full confidence in his team at @CDCgov who will continue to be vigilant in protecting Americans against infectious diseases at home and abroad.
August 27, 2025 at 11:53 PM
davidimiller.bsky.social
The program pages for the other relevant K-12 STEM funding opportunities are now all listed as "archived."

Here's an example for DRK-12, confirming the change: www.nsf.gov/funding/oppo...
Screenshot showing the Discovery Research PreK-12 program as archived.
August 25, 2025 at 4:04 PM
davidimiller.bsky.social
The new solicitation says it's expected to accommodate proposals that would have fit with those prior programs.

But other parts of it raise questions about if it has a more restricted narrow focus on AI/emerging tech in K-12 ed.

e.g., see the framing here: www.nsf.gov/news/nsf-ann...
Solicitation The NSF STEM K-12 program will support innovative, multidisciplinary research that explores how AI and other emerging technologies can be leveraged to study and enhance STEM teaching and learning. This program seeks projects that produce new tools and frameworks, harness exemplary formal and informal learning and unlock new avenues of scientific inquiry and discovery in STEM education. This broad funding opportunity has a particular focus on research and development advances that will be translated to STEM classroom practices.
August 22, 2025 at 11:08 PM
davidimiller.bsky.social
For those already familiar with NSF EDU programs:

Here's more on the reorg of programs, which chiefly affects the Division of Research on Learning (DRL):
The following solicitations are currently archived. Investigators who would have applied to these programs are particularly encouraged to consider NSF STEM K-12. Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL) Computer Science for All (CSforAll) Discovery Research PreK-12 (DRK-12) Translation and Diffusion (TD) Investigators who would typically submit to the EDU Core Research (ECR) solicitation for research in K-12 and informal settings are encouraged to apply to NSF STEM K-12. ECR will only accept proposals for DUE and DGE focused projects.
August 22, 2025 at 10:57 PM
davidimiller.bsky.social
3/ Barrett positions herself as a moderate, siding with the liberal justices on one issue (the directives) and the conservative justices on another (actual terminations).

In reality: she just concocted a nightmare labyrinth system for getting any actual relief.

Jackson put it best in her dissent:
For a cautionary tale about lawmaking on the emergency docket, look no further than this newest iteration. By today’s order, an evenly divided Court neuters judicial review of grant terminations by sending plaintiffs on a likely futile, multivenue quest for complete relief. Neither party to the case suggested this convoluted procedural outcome, and no prior court has held that the law requires it. But, in the view of the deciding vote, California compels this conclusion. “So only another under-reasoned emergency order undergirds today’s.” Trump v. Boyle, 606 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (KAGAN, J., dissenting from grant of application for stay) (slip op., at 2).
August 22, 2025 at 2:55 PM
davidimiller.bsky.social
2/ Despite ALL OF THOSE DIRECTIVES being declared as "void" and "illegal" and "no effect":

SCOTUS then said: claims about any actual grants terminated based on those directives has to go to a *completely separate* lower court first.

SCOTUS therefore reversed these two orders until that happens:
The Resulting Grant Terminations pursuant to the Directives are DECLARED to be unlawful, arbitrary and capricious final agency actions under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), the Resulting Grant Terminations are hereby OF NO EFFECT, VOID, ILLEGAL, SET ASIDE AND VACATED.
August 22, 2025 at 2:55 PM
davidimiller.bsky.social
🧪 Showing just how absurd yesterday's Supreme Court decision on NIH grant termination was:

Sort of 👍:

Here's the long list of directives where a 5-4 SCOTUS effectively said: "yup, was OK for the district court to say those were illegal, void, of no effect, etc."

But then 👎❓❓❓....
Court order excerpt listing directives from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that are declared unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). It enumerates 11 memoranda and directives from February–May 2025, including guidance on DEI-related funding, NIH review of agency priorities, award assessments, grant terminations, and COVID-19 grant termination. The final section states that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), these directives are declared of no effect, void, illegal, set aside, and vacated.
August 22, 2025 at 2:55 PM
davidimiller.bsky.social
Indeed, the Thakur plaintiffs just filed a letter making those exact two arguments. So, we'll see how this plays out.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Crucially, this ruling does not affect the Equity Termination Class in this case,whose injunction rests upon First Amendment claims, not Administrative Procedure Act claims. Indeed, the government agreed at oral argument on July 3 l, 2025 that its Tucker Act jurisdictional argument did not apply to the Equity Class. For the Form Termination Class (as well as the Equity Class), there is another crucial difference between this case and the NIH case: Plaintiffs here are individual researchers who have been injured by grant terminations. The Court of Claims likely would have no jurisdiction to hear their claims, because they are not parties to the grants. Dismissing their claims from federal district court could One Bush Street, Suite 900 - San Francisco, CA 94104 - P: 415.954.4400 - F: 415.954.4480 SAN FRANCISCO . ST. HELENA c fbm.com Case: 25-4249, 08/21/2025, DktEntry: 40.1, Page 2 of 40 V Farella Braun + Martel Molly C. Dwyer August 21, 2025 Page 2 leave them with no forum, raising serious due process issues not addressed in the Supreme Court's stay, and contravening the basic principle that complete preclusion of jurisdiction should not be allowed without express indication from Congress. See, et., McNarjy v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 U.S. 479, 496 (1981) ("well-settled presumption favoring interpretation of statutes that allow judicial review of administrative action", "it is most unlikely that Congress intended to foreclose all forms of meaningful judicial review.")
August 22, 2025 at 3:48 AM
davidimiller.bsky.social
4/ Barrett was the deciding vote in this 5-4 decision.

So her 4-page opinion has the most practical weight here.

And her ruling effectively upheld an earlier order that declared NIH's termination directives as illegal.

But she did so in a rather tepid way (excerpt below):
Of course, whether claims about the guidance in this case will succeed is another question. It is not obvious, for instance, that NIH’s guidance is final agency action. Yet the Government did not press this argument—or any other—in its stay application.2 Instead, its application largely ignores the guidance, which suggests that this —————— 2 Citing stray references to the guidance, JUSTICE KAVANAUGH draws a different conclusion. Post, at 1–2 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). I respectfully disagree with his reading of the filings. In my view, the Government plainly raised merits-based arguments regarding the grant terminations, not the guidance. See Application 29– 34. 6 NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH v. AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSN. BARRETT, J., concurring aspect of the judgments causes it no irreparable harm. The Government has therefore failed to show that it is entitled to a stay of the judgments insofar as they vacate the guidance. Of course, it remains free to challenge the District Court’s vacatur of the guidance before the First Circuit.
August 21, 2025 at 10:52 PM
davidimiller.bsky.social
I think the explainer misrepresents Barrett's opinion though.

@stevevladeck.bsky.social said Barrett thought the underlying directives were likely unlawful.

But here's the relevant part of her opinion, which is considerably more neutral on the merits, saying it's "not obvious".
Of course, whether claims about the guidance in this case will succeed is another question. It is not obvious, for instance, that NIH’s guidance is final agency action. Yet the Government did not press this argument—or any other—in its stay application.2 Instead, its application largely ignores the guidance, which suggests that this —————— 2 Citing stray references to the guidance, JUSTICE KAVANAUGH draws a different conclusion. Post, at 1–2 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). I respectfully disagree with his reading of the filings. In my view, the Government plainly raised merits-based arguments regarding the grant terminations, not the guidance. See Application 29– 34. 6 NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH v. AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSN. BARRETT, J., concurring aspect of the judgments causes it no irreparable harm. The Government has therefore failed to show that it is entitled to a stay of the judgments insofar as they vacate the guidance. Of course, it remains free to challenge the District Court’s vacatur of the guidance before the First Circuit.
August 21, 2025 at 10:07 PM
davidimiller.bsky.social
🧪 New study: Learning about economic impact of NIH funding motivates action to oppose funding cuts.

Evidence from two preregistered, randomized experiments with >5,000 U.S. adults.

Similar change for liberals and conservatives. Preprint from @asinclair.bsky.social et al:

osf.io/preprints/ps...
Study 2 Intervention Materials Base Intervention Text The National Institutes of Health (NIH) provide funding for scientific research that leads to major breakthroughs for cancer, diabetes, dementia, heart disease, infectious diseases, stroke, mental illness, and more. NIH funding is also an excellent financial investment. For every dollar NIH invests in research, an average of $2.56 of economic activity is returned–a gain of over 250%. The White House recently ordered major changes to NIH funding, which would take back funds already promised to the states. States have sued to challenge the order, arguing that the changes are unlawful. [page break] There are two major sources of cuts to NIH funding, which will result in current and future losses. First, many NIH grants for health research have already been cancelled, interrupting ongoing studies and clinical trials. These cancelled grants are projected to result in economic losses of $4.9 Billion and over 21,000 jobs. Second, another change would greatly reduce NIH funding that covers “indirect costs” of research. These funds help pay for essential facilities, equipment, skilled staff, and safety checks needed across many research projects. Medical research would not be possible without funding to cover indirect costs. In the future, this proposed change to funding for indirect costs of research would reduce the U.S. economy by about $16 Billion and over 68,000 jobs every year.
August 20, 2025 at 8:22 PM
davidimiller.bsky.social
Here's an example such footnote, that's now finally publicly available due to the recent court order.

This footnote went away after the WSJ reporting came out and White House reversed course due to the swift blowback.

openomb.org/file/1144233...
A2: Amounts apportioned, but not yet obligated as of the date of this reapportionment, are available for obligation consistent with the latest agreed-upon spending plan for Fiscal Year 2025 between the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). HHS may continue to make obligations for salaries and related administrative expenses. Any revisions or additions to such spending plan shall be proposed to OMB in writing no later than five business days before the anticipated obligation of funds based on such revisions or additions. If OMB agrees to such revision or addition, OMB will notify HHS in writing, and the latest agreed-upon spend plan shall include that modification.
August 18, 2025 at 8:56 PM
davidimiller.bsky.social
Context from WSJ story on July 29:

www.wsj.com/politics/pol...
The Wall Street Journal reported earlier Tuesday that an initial pause had come in the form of a footnote from the Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought’s office, in a document that doles out federal funds to the National Institutes of Health. The footnote stipulated that the agency’s funding for the remainder of the fiscal year could only go to staff salaries and expenses, not to new grants or certain grants that are up for renewal. Most NIH-funded research is done by outside scientists at labs across the country. Officials from the Department of Health and Human Services spent the past several days fighting the funding pause, people familiar with the matter said. The OMB reversed course after the Journal’s story was published Tuesday, the people said.
August 18, 2025 at 8:56 PM